I believe what Jesus says about the Word of God.
Catholics need to show that from the early Church Fathers, up until the present that any interpretation of scripture has remained 100% identical and no teaching on scripture has changed at all.
Yet another ex-Protestant who never understood the meaning of “Sola Scriptura” and now argues against it. What exactly can one hope to prove with such sources?
I believe what Jesus says about the Word of God.
Okay. But what about the ensuing +/-1,900 years?
I sincerely doubt that Origen of Alexandria, had he been alive to witness events during those years, would be willing to repeat that statement today.
Ooh. I love these fight threads. Jew ping!
Yeah, that’s exactly what’s wrong with America today: too many folks look to Scripture for guidance.
Yeah, we should listen to the leftist freah with the funny hat.
Feelings,
Wo-o-o feelings
Wo-o-o feelings
Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Simple question...
When Jesus was on the Earth..
he was a Jew..
what was his position on his following the scriptures...the word..and the will of the father?
Vs
The men that claimed to be the leaders of the Jewish faith
Hint
it was the men that set themselves up as leaders of his faith that persecuted him, charged him with heresy and blasphemy, and demanded he be crucified
Ha ha, that's rich. How about the Catholic's fallible collection of infallible teaching?
Or better yet, please explain the nobility and manly act of suicide as described in Second Maccabees.
Besides, that statement is a straw man. When determining canon, there was a set of criteria. The books in the collection passed the criteria. We have the witness of Christians since the beginning to testify to the validity of canon and we have the promise of the Holy Spirit as our helper. The promises were made to Christians, not to the Catholic Church.
About the various points... They have been answered many times.
Scriptural sense? Please. The speakers at the time had authority. After they died, their writing had authority.
Historical sense? Read the early church fathers. They always quote scripture. Tradition is useful, but it is subjugated to scripture.
Practical sense? It is the rule of the Christian faith. People don't get to make stuff up. Either it can be backed up by scripture, or it can't. And even when it can be backed up with scripture, that defense has to be sound with the rest of scripture. That some twist scripture to their own ends is scriptural. But the solution given in scripture is not to look towards Rome, but to look towards scripture.
Logical sense? Have you ever heard of the telephone game? Information written down is always more reliable that passed from person to person. Why is it more believable to say that the Holy Spirit will preserve the teaching of the Catholic Church than to say that the Holy Spirit was with the group of Christians that used a rigorous set of criteria to determine canon and that canon has been repeatedly confirmed throughout history.
Logical sense? The scriptures are always true. The teaching of the Catholic Church is always true when it's infallible, but there is no infallible guide to know when it's infallible. My favorite is with the current Pope, if he teaches something as infallible that clearly isn't, all you have to do is question his validity as Pope.
bookmark
“But then I read the writings of the early Church and found the Fathers of Christianity quite simply speaking a different language. They spoke of the authority of Scripture. But then they also spoke of the apostolic teaching as something preserved in the Church through apostolic succession and that functioned as a lens through which the light of Scripture comes into focus and is correctly understood.”
There you have it. Buy into that and you are now unmoored from the God-breathed Word. The “Fathers of Christianity”? I know not what it means. I’ve heard of THE Father.
“They spoke of the authority of Scripture. But then...”
This man is NOT going to Scripture. He’s been lured away from it. Tradition is the lens through which SCRIPTURE is properly interpreted? No sale. You can obsess over terms such as “Protestant” and “sola scriptura” all day, but what is the Truth? How does one know definitively, so as to not be found in a lie?
I hold every teacher’s words up to Scripture, period.
Where does the Catholic Church, papacy, ect...interpret from? From Scripture. The Church has to use Scripture, to interpret Scripture. So when you think about it, the church actually give Scripture the Final Authority. But I wonder why we would give mere man, the finite, the authority to interpret as he wish. The word of God is God breadth. Why do we need any thing else than that. If the church has the authority of interpretation, why then do we find contradictions from popes throughout history. God can’t and does not contradict himself, so thus interpretation must be false. And must not be inspired from God.